San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego
6 Cal. App. 5th 995
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1997 the San Diego City Council certified a program EIR and approved a Master Plan allowing mixed-use development in Kearny Mesa; later amendments and an MND addressed increased residential units.
- In 2012 the City issued a planned development permit (PDP) and mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for Sunroad’s phased residential/retail/office Project, including numerous permit conditions; the PDP required substantial conformance review (SCR) for proposed changes.
- In November 2013 Sunroad sought SCR for design modifications (pedestrian bridge, removal of one parking level, reduced bicycle spaces, small building height increase) without changing unit count or above-ground stories.
- City staff reviewed the revisions, concluded they conformed to prior approvals and mitigation measures and that no further CEQA documentation was required; the Development Services Department issued an SCR decision that any appeals go to the Planning Commission.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Planning Commission, lost, then attempted to appeal to the City Council; the City refused to process a Council appeal because determinations that no further environmental review is required are not appealable to Council under its rules and CEQA guidance.
- Plaintiffs sued for writ of mandate and declaratory relief; the trial court ruled plaintiffs had no right to appeal the SCR decision to the City Council. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to an administrative appeal of the SCR decision to the City Council under Pub. Resources Code § 21151(c) and SDMC § 112.0520 | § 21151(c) allows appeal to elected body when a nonelected body certifies an EIR, approves (M)ND, or determines a project is not subject to CEQA; SCR decision effectively determined no further CEQA review was required, so Council appeal is required | Neither staff nor Planning Commission certified an EIR or approved a (M)ND or determined the Project was not subject to CEQA; SCR merely found proposed revisions conformed to prior approvals and mitigation measures, so § 21151(c) and SDMC appeal provision do not apply | Court held plaintiffs were not entitled to appeal to City Council; SCR decision was not an "environmental determination" triggering § 21151(c) or SDMC § 112.0520 appeal rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, 43 Cal.4th 936 (general de novo review of CEQA legal compliance)
- Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 57 Cal.4th 439 (CEQA Guidelines accorded great weight)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (three-tier CEQA review framework)
- Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry, 7 Cal.4th 1215 (purpose and function of EIR as informational document)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (EIR purpose and informational role)
- Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles, 153 Cal.App.4th 1385 (limiting circumstances for preparing subsequent/supplemental EIR)
- San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition v. City of San Diego, 185 Cal.App.4th 924 (discussion of subsequent environmental review and CEQA procedure)